The second amendment is a civic duty, and it will be threatened as long as the general public is not prepared to respond to local officials who call up the militia. I believe the Swiss model of national defense to be far more in line with our Constitution than is our huge standing federal army and national guard. A national standing army and a disarmed general public was dreaded and feared by our founding fathers because it was the favored method of European monarchs of that time to exercise tyranny.

Our public schools should educate centering on constitutionally outlined civic duties, one of which is the militia. Our schools should teach gun safety and marksmanship as required courses. It would make our schools safer. Shooting should be the number one sport and all schools should have a shooting range. It is more important than football. After school hours the general public should be allowed to use the range and buy ammo there dirt cheap. To have our schools be gun free zones demonstrates how anti-Constitution they are.

We need to reinstate the local militia under the control of the local government and require all men 18 to 45 be active in regular training. I think most of them would love it.

My personal view is that the second amendment outlines both a natural right and a civic duty. Both need to be strongly developed for the second amendment to function properly.

]]>By: trumpetbob15http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34980
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:19:05 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34980One point about the 27th. If I remember my reading correctly, that was actually one of the amendments originally cut from the Bill of Rights. I agree that it was grandstanding that got it through Congress, but its original purpose was to prevent corruption, probably one reason why it required an amendment in the first place.
]]>By: UCrawfordhttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34976
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:59:42 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34976I disagree about the term limits though, I think the problem with term limits is that they aren’t extended to Congress as well. One of the primary arguments against term limits is that it keeps us from having experienced and competent politicians in charge. Having politicians with competence and experience gives stupid people reason to trust them with more power (something our Constitution tried to prevent). And that leads to the growth of government power and the eventual abuse of that power, which is contrary to everything libertarians believe in.

Term limits for the presidency after all were set up in response to the unconstitutional abuses of power by FDR.

]]>By: Rhymes With Righthttp://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34967
Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:23:23 +0000http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/08/15/all-the-other-ones/#comment-34967Gotta disagree with you on a couple of things here.

The Fifteenth Amendment was necessary because of the Dred Scot decision, which made it questionable whether blacks could be citizens at all. Better to write it in stone than to leave the question dangling — and open to interpretation by an activist court.

And as for the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, I remind you that it is written on the same parchment as the Bill of Rights. If the drafters of those ten amendments felt it to be important enough to include, I’m willing to defer to them (although I’ll concede that the contrary argument can be made, given that there was also one other amendment submitted but not ratified — one that would increase the size of congress by a factor of 10 or more were it to be ratified today).